This "good enough" issue is of particular relevance to me since I recently had a 3 month detour into high Mp FF (Nikon Z7) but eventually decided that I just preferred working with the Olympus system so came "home" again. The main realisation I made was that despite the obviously superior IQ of the Nikon, it really didn't count for much in terms of how I was using the output (mostly on-line, some A3/A2 prints). Maybe others will come to a different conclusion (and I can see that high ISO performance could be a big deal for people who need it), but I don't think I'm that unusual in my needs.
However, I agree entirely with your point about how the photo review community handles m43, and their almost complete lack of relating whether the IQ is "good enough". This
Petapixel review of the E-M1iii is a great example - and actually, I think it's a fair review, so better than many others. They clearly used the camera for more than 5 mins (not something all reviewers do!) and said a lot of positive things about it. But they criticised the camera in three key areas - the sensor, the rear LCD, and the EVF. I actually agree with them on the rear LCD and the EVF since these are things that Olympus could have, and should have, upgraded. They are both components that are readily available from the usual vendors and could relatively easily been introduced into the camera. Neither are related in the slightest to the sensor format and both would have improved the usability and "pleasure" of using the camera.
When it comes to the sensor though, I have mixed feelings. PetePixel said some strong things:
I think that last point is seriously over-stepping the reality - you only need to look at the work of many top-flight pros using m43 gear to realise that.
But I guess it's just a reflection of what happens when you get an arms-race between competitors. The US and the USSR got to the point of being able to annihilate the world a hundred times over before the brakes went on with nuclear weapons.
But what if the E-M1iii had been launched with a new sensor? A 36Mp BSI device for example (which is clearly within the bounds of modern sensor tech) would have done wonders for the format and toned down this type of negative review. But, I wonder to what extent it would have mattered in terms of making better photographs? Maybe that doesn't actually matter though - it's just about making sure you're keeping up with the Joneses.
PetaPixel comments on softness across 5000 shots it worrying.
Despite knowing how good m43 is, and comparing directly to FF Canon Pro Bodies and L Lenses from 10 years ago, I still wonder what the catch is. Media Bias is very powerful, even if unfounded and subconscious. Despite knowing better, the reporting bias still influences my thoughts, and to some degree confidence in smaller sensors.
Remember good old days, in late 90’s with Photo.Net reviewing/discussing EOS 3, and wondering (but knowing there wasn’t) what quality improvements that popular semi-pro body would give over consumer options. Remember the ‘2 shots’ over sized Polaroid portraits by Elsa Dorfman, camera in one room, photographer in another. Remember, Joey L early postings with Canon G3 giving all the background details on his work, a prolific talent at only 15 years of age, self taught using what many might consider basic equipment. Sadly much of his early stuff appears hard to find, or maybe removed. Remember Pope’s Posts on new canon’s, often shooting hot in a good way, with gentle roll off on highlights.
Best of all, Remember the early Canon Pro DSLR shots taken and judged by VOGUE Photographers. If I remember right, 4 Mega Pixel EOS 1d files being used for both A4 and A3 fashion spreads, and professionals couldn’t tell them apart from traditional methods. The ‘300dpi rule’ is much misunderstood to this day. 4mp and no aa filter had more moire issues in those days, but it was a sign.
When I first saw E-M10 sooc jpeg files with a kit lens, I was very impressed, yet was puzzled why majority of consumers kept buying dslr’s with inferior results from kit lenses, and the associated af issues.
To this day, amazed Canon got away with describing their DSLR’s as ‘an interchangeable lens system’ across 2 decades. With canon mirrorless they now say the end of ‘micro adjustments’, which was a dam clever marketing hood wink in its own right - along with distracting people by discussing the unmeasurable (by consumers) depth of focus argument, rather than acknowledging problems with position of depth of field using af (which anyone could easily see with a suitable A2 test chart, and evaluate using accepted truth that technically point of focus should be placed within depth of field).
The idea of buying one new lens or body, and then having to send your WHOLE KIT to canon for Af Adjustment was ridiculous. Each item should have been individually adjusted to a neutral standard (using a tool lens or body, and official test chart), and then operated in tolerance range (from neutral as an average). They should have come from factory like that, or CPS should have adjusted them back to that. But they knew items didn’t always meet specifications, tolerances or expectations of reasonable standard, and they would pick the easy option, if 2 items didn’t work together, to try and get them to work to an acceptable af standard - this strategy failed too often.
Canon (CPS) were also caught without having (or using) the correct test chart or neutral tool items (lens or body) to use as reference, before then making a misguided af adjustment that could (and did) make things dramatically worse, having taken one test shot on a Micky Mouse A4 test chart at close focusing distance (which made most items look great). What did CPS do when caught with their pants down and hands in the cookie jar - they lied, blaming customer not service team or management.
Back then af issues in professional wedding albums were quite common, back focus being easier to spot, front focus seemed more common. But from memory fewer issues were seen with blown highlights. Perhaps coming from film people were more aware of issues with burnt highlights. Today, many forum posters insist they need the very latest, best, most dynamic range, lowest noise, etc, as it’s essential to their work, blah blah blah - then they go and blow highlights and fill in shadows with complete abandon, notably on grooms suits and brides dresses - is it lack of skill, not bothered or a bad style. B&G’s still seem to pick’em tho. Perhaps styles have changed - but perhaps that’s even more reason why m43 is good enough.
If I’m ranting, apologies.
. Only wish my November trip to Goa wasn’t cancelled.
